- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2010,13:49) Mike: Okay, true enough. My point has been effectively nullified by you, WJ. It is a non-point for it proves nothing for either side.
Wrong, because it proves what I have said all along that you cannot say “Monogenes” is proof Jesus had a beginning.Therefore it is conjecture on your part that “Monogenes” applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.
That was my point and you have verified my point as being valid but then you say it is “null and void”.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,05:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2010,13:49) Mike: Okay, true enough. My point has been effectively nullified by you, WJ. It is a non-point for it proves nothing for either side.
Wrong, because it proves what I have said all along that you cannot say “Monogenes” is proof Jesus had a beginning.Therefore it is conjecture on your part that “Monogenes” applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.
That was my point and you have verified my point as being valid but then you say it is “null and void”.
WJ
The Word of God did not have a beginning.
Jesus Christ did.but we know that, Jesus Christ is The Manifestation of The Word of God.
———
So when he says, He came from heaven…we are to understand that he came from heaven as The Word of God.
and became human, in the person of Jesus Christ.
The Word of God was his glorified form that was WITH God in the beginning.
Jesus Christ was his humbled human form on earth.
he was later restored back to that of The Word of God, after his ressurection.
Quote (RokkaMan @ July 03 2010,14:02) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,05:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2010,13:49) Mike: Okay, true enough. My point has been effectively nullified by you, WJ. It is a non-point for it proves nothing for either side.
Wrong, because it proves what I have said all along that you cannot say “Monogenes” is proof Jesus had a beginning.Therefore it is conjecture on your part that “Monogenes” applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.
That was my point and you have verified my point as being valid but then you say it is “null and void”.
WJ
The Word of God did not have a beginning.
Jesus Christ did.but we know that, Jesus Christ is The Manifestation of The Word of God.
———
So when he says, He came from heaven…we are to understand that he came from heaven as The Word of God.
and became human, in the person of Jesus Christ.
The Word of God was his glorified form that was WITH God in the beginning.
Jesus Christ was his humbled human form on earth.
he was later restored back to that of The Word of God, after his ressurection.
Conjecture!There is no scripture that proves Jesus had a beginning before the incarnation!
WJ
Quote (RokkaMan @ July 03 2010,14:02) [The Word of God did not have a beginning.
Jesus Christ did.but we know that, Jesus Christ is The Manifestation of The Word of God.
No Jesus is the Word! John 1:1-3 – 1 John 1:1-3 – Rev 19:13WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,06:05) Quote (RokkaMan @ July 03 2010,14:02) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,05:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2010,13:49) Mike: Okay, true enough. My point has been effectively nullified by you, WJ. It is a non-point for it proves nothing for either side.
Wrong, because it proves what I have said all along that you cannot say “Monogenes” is proof Jesus had a beginning.Therefore it is conjecture on your part that “Monogenes” applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.
That was my point and you have verified my point as being valid but then you say it is “null and void”.
WJ
The Word of God did not have a beginning.
Jesus Christ did.but we know that, Jesus Christ is The Manifestation of The Word of God.
———
So when he says, He came from heaven…we are to understand that he came from heaven as The Word of God.
and became human, in the person of Jesus Christ.
The Word of God was his glorified form that was WITH God in the beginning.
Jesus Christ was his humbled human form on earth.
he was later restored back to that of The Word of God, after his ressurection.
Conjecture!There is no scripture that proves Jesus had a beginning before the incarnation!
WJ
O ? So when Jesus said, “Father restore me to the glory I held before the world was”He was lying?
When he said, in John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
He was lying?
——
i've already agreed with you WJ,
yet you come back with an unmistakeable folly.
Jesus Christ did not exist before his incarnation on earth.
But The Word of God existed alongside forever with YHVH.
Jesus Christ was and is The Word of God before incarnation.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,05:56) Wrong, because it proves what I have said all along that you cannot say “Monogenes” is proof Jesus had a beginning. Therefore it is conjecture on your part that “Monogenes” applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.
That was my point and you have verified my point as being valid but then you say it is “null and void”.
No, you're wrong because I can and will prove that when we get to it.I only addressed your point exactly as it was written. I suggest you try that sometime.
You arguing that your point is validation of anything is ridiculous. It would be like me, after you said I couldn't prove Jesus WAS NOT God based just on the info that my hair was brown, saying, “Yeah, but you still can't prove he WAS, so my point is still valid”. It's stupidity. Your point “a” and “b-part 1” are both proof of nothing and need not be discussed anymore. Move on.
mike
RM,
This is a debate thread.
Please do not post here unless asked to by the debaters or the debate has been classed as 'open', which this is not.
If you feel strongly about a point in a debate thread then start a thread concerning that point, or post it in another open thread of a suitable topic.
[Moderator]Quote (JustAskin @ July 04 2010,07:18) RM, This is a debate thread.
Hi JA,Not yet, but hopefully soon. If I don't hear back from t8, I'll take your advice and just copy it to the debates.
mike
Quote (RokkaMan @ July 04 2010,06:13) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,06:05) Quote (RokkaMan @ July 03 2010,14:02) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,05:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2010,13:49) Mike: Okay, true enough. My point has been effectively nullified by you, WJ. It is a non-point for it proves nothing for either side.
Wrong, because it proves what I have said all along that you cannot say “Monogenes” is proof Jesus had a beginning.Therefore it is conjecture on your part that “Monogenes” applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.
That was my point and you have verified my point as being valid but then you say it is “null and void”.
WJ
The Word of God did not have a beginning.
Jesus Christ did.but we know that, Jesus Christ is The Manifestation of The Word of God.
———
So when he says, He came from heaven…we are to understand that he came from heaven as The Word of God.
and became human, in the person of Jesus Christ.
The Word of God was his glorified form that was WITH God in the beginning.
Jesus Christ was his humbled human form on earth.
he was later restored back to that of The Word of God, after his ressurection.
Conjecture!There is no scripture that proves Jesus had a beginning before the incarnation!
WJ
O ? So when Jesus said, “Father restore me to the glory I held before the world was”He was lying?
When he said, in John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
He was lying?
——
i've already agreed with you WJ,
yet you come back with an unmistakeable folly.
Jesus Christ did not exist before his incarnation on earth.
But The Word of God existed alongside forever with YHVH.
Jesus Christ was and is The Word of God before incarnation.
hiit seams you need a more enlarged view than what as been said in scriptures so you go to men opinion,and so place Gods word in second place;
all your bla,bla about Christ ,THE WORD,the son of God could be solved if you would stop to lean on verse by verse jumping all around in scriptures so that you have no way to come to any understanding that can stay in your heart forever,so that you can built the truth of God in you .
what you are looking for is compliance with others not for truth of God ,
just remember the word of God as not be transmited to the brains of this world,but the humble ones.
and being a expert in old languages does not make the understanding of Gods spirit any better,or worse.
Gods spirit is spread all over the scripture ,for us to find and understand so we may love him with our hearts.
Pierre
Mike,
Why is the thread labelled 'Mikeboll vs WJ, if it's not a debate. And if it's not a debate, how does anyone know it's not a debate, and when it does becomea debate how does the moderator know that it's a debate to try and direct others into complying with debate rules?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,05:56) Wrong, because it proves what I have said all along that you cannot say “Monogenes” is proof Jesus had a beginning.
What part of this statement do you not understand Mike?You have already agreed the term “Monogenes” was not applied to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
I said…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010 @ 10:39)
Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?
And you said…Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010 @ 20:45)
Not that scripture records.
Since the term “Monogenes” means “only, of the same kind” Son of God, then you further clarified this by saying…Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22) I CANNOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROVING JESUS WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD PRIOR TO HIS COMING IN FLESH WITH ONLY THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T CALLED THAT UNTIL HE CAME IN THE FLESH. AND I WILLINGLY ADMIT THAT. THAT IS WHY I WON'T USE THIS INFO AS MY FOUNDATION – GET IT?
Why are you stubornly ignoring the facts?The point was…
a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on your part.
Can a moderator please help this guy see the truth about my claim here so we can move on to the debate?
WJ
RM
Quote (RokkaMan @ July 03 2010,14:13) Jesus Christ did not exist before his incarnation on earth. Quote (RokkaMan @ July 03 2010,14:13) Jesus Christ was and is The Word of God before incarnation.
Please explain these two contradictory statements!WJ
Quote (JustAskin @ July 04 2010,07:35) Mike, Why is the thread labelled 'Mikeboll vs WJ, if it's not a debate. And if it's not a debate, how does anyone know it's not a debate, and when it does becomea debate how does the moderator know that it's a debate to try and direct others into complying with debate rules?
Really JA? It's had the same title since I started it, but I failed to put it in a debate thread, therefore it's fair game for all. You have been posting on it all along, so it seemed strange to me that you “disciplined” RM for doing the same.If it isn't in the official debate category, it's a free for all. That's why I've now realized my mistake that SF pointed out right off the bat, and have asked t8 to move it.
peace and love to you, my friend,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,08:04) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,05:56) Wrong, because it proves what I have said all along that you cannot say “Monogenes” is proof Jesus had a beginning.
What part of this statement do you not understand Mike?You have already agreed the term “Monogenes” was not applied to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
I said…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010 @ 10:39)
Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?
And you said…Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010 @ 20:45)
Not that scripture records.
Since the term “Monogenes” means “only, of the same kind” Son of God, then you further clarified this by saying…Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22) I CANNOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROVING JESUS WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD PRIOR TO HIS COMING IN FLESH WITH ONLY THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T CALLED THAT UNTIL HE CAME IN THE FLESH. AND I WILLINGLY ADMIT THAT. THAT IS WHY I WON'T USE THIS INFO AS MY FOUNDATION – GET IT?
Why are you stubornly ignoring the facts?The point was…
a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.
Can a moderator please help this guy see the truth about my claim here so we can move on to the debate?
WJ
Hi WJ,As a moderator outside of the situation, I think I see your point here. Mike is saying your point is invalidated, while you are claiming your point IS valid, even as Mike's opposing point is also equally valid.
So Mike, quit stalling and admit WJ's first point was valid. Then he will gladly admit that your opposing point, while somehow NOT invalidating HIS point, is also valid.
Therefore, the score of this debate is 1 point for WJ, 1 point for Mike. You are even! Will you move on to the next point already?
Moderator
Hi Moderator,
Okay, I can live with that. It's 1 to 1.
WJ, can you answer my rebuttal of your second point?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2010,16:35) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,08:04) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,05:56) Wrong, because it proves what I have said all along that you cannot say “Monogenes” is proof Jesus had a beginning.
What part of this statement do you not understand Mike?You have already agreed the term “Monogenes” was not applied to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
I said…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010 @ 10:39)
Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?
And you said…Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010 @ 20:45)
Not that scripture records.
Since the term “Monogenes” means “only, of the same kind” Son of God, then you further clarified this by saying…Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22) I CANNOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROVING JESUS WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD PRIOR TO HIS COMING IN FLESH WITH ONLY THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T CALLED THAT UNTIL HE CAME IN THE FLESH. AND I WILLINGLY ADMIT THAT. THAT IS WHY I WON'T USE THIS INFO AS MY FOUNDATION – GET IT?
Why are you stubornly ignoring the facts?The point was…
a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.
Can a moderator please help this guy see the truth about my claim here so we can move on to the debate?
WJ
Hi WJ,As a moderator outside of the situation, I think I see your point here. Mike is saying your point is invalidated, while you are claiming your point IS valid, even as Mike's opposing point is also equally valid.
So Mike, quit stalling and admit WJ's first point was valid. Then he will gladly admit that your opposing point, while somehow NOT invalidating HIS point, is also valid.
Therefore, the score of this debate is 1 point for WJ, 1 point for Mike. You are even! Will you move on to the next point already?
Moderator
No Mike you are not outside of this!
Your scoring is flawed.
WJ
I am beginning to wonder about anyone on this sight being objective as a referee in the debate.
It seems that no one wants to do the right thing and show mike the truth about my point, maybe because of bias and to show face for mike, I don't know.
WJs Contention is there is no scripture that proves Jesus had a beginning.
Mikes contention is that Jesus had a beginning.
The point has been made that the term “Monogenes” is not proof of a beginning.
WJs point is there are no scriptures that applies the term “Monogenes” (only, single of its kind) to Jesus before coming in the flesh.
Mike agrees, but comes up with a “negative unknown” point to try and disprove the contended point.
Its like me saying “there is no water in the glass” but then mike saying “just because there isn't any water in the glass does not mean that there could not be water in the glass”.
The last part is a logical fallacy!
Mike is either being totally dishonest or he is just being purposely ignorant.
WJ
Okay WJ,
You want to stretch it out? Jesus wasn't CALLED the monogenes Son of God until he was flesh.
IS THAT PROOF THAT HE ALREADY WAS THE MONOGENES SON OF GOD BEFORE THAT? NO.
IS THAT PROOF THAT HE WASN'T? NO.
That's the end of your point “a”. But that's not good enough for you for some reason. So here's some more.
Although Jesus wasn't called the “monogenes” Son of God until he was flesh, he was CALLED God's Son who was begotten by God BEFORE he was flesh. (Psalm 2:7)
And since we later find out that Jesus is the ONLY Son of God that is said to be begotten by God, it is clear that Jesus WAS CALLED the only begotten Son of God BEFORE he was flesh, just not in those exact words.
Bring it on, man.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 03 2010,17:09) IS THAT PROOF THAT HE WASN'T? NO.
Mike we are talking about facts not unknowns or conjecture.FACT…no scritpure applies the word “Monogenes” to Jesus untill after he came in the flesh.
Conjecture…it could have been! He still could have been the “Monogenes” Son of God before he came in the flesh. Just because its not in scripture doesn't mean it isn't true.
We are discussing scripture and not what could be or could have been or what you think it is!!!
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
